Slashdot Mirror
US Toddlers Involved In Shootings On a Weekly Basis (washingtonpost.com)
New submitter fremsley471 writes with this story by Christopher Ingraham about shooting accidents involving children 3 and under in The United States. There were at least 43 cases this year of shootings involving a toddler. The Washington Post reports: "This week a 2-year-old in South Carolina found a gun in the back seat of the car he was riding in and accidentally shot his grandmother, who was sitting in the passenger seat. This type of thing happens from time to time: a little kid finds a gun, fires it, and hurts or kills himself or someone else. These cases rarely bubble up to the national level except when someone, like a parent, ends up dead. But cases like this happen a lot more frequently than you might think. Briefly sifting through news reports found at least 43 instances this year of somebody being shot by a toddler 3 or younger. In 31 of those 43 cases, a toddler found a gun and shot himself or herself."
Where are the laws that keep toddlers from obtaining guns?
Is there any reason at all for this to be on Slashdot, except to push a general political agenda?
I am a geek attorney, but not your geek attorney unless you've already retained me. This is not legal advice.
Guns, after all, aren't a factor in people being shot, guns don't make you shoot anyone.
Thus we need to ban toddlers instead.
It is a perfect solution. Nobody likes them they cry, they behind, and they make stinky poops.
The problem is likely much worse. Few events that should make the news are more quickly swept under the rug than accidental shootings. The ones that do make it through end up either buried in the back-most of the back pages, or written off in creative ways. A particularly egregious example of the latter made the slashdot front page years ago as Accidental Wii Suicide when a toddler got ahold of dad's loaded, unlocked revolver that was sitting within her reach and killed herself.
And of course what happens to the gun owners (if they are lucky enough to not be the ones shot)? Generally nothing. Not even charges investigated, law enforcement just says "shit happens" and walk away.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
I am a gun owner. I have a permit and I carry daily. I support our rights to own firearms and refuse to give mine up. I believe that anyone who does this has a great responsibility to society to be trained, secure their weapon, and to be responsible. It should be a felony to leave a weapon unsecured and unsupervised. If a child acquires a weapon from you and uses it to harm himself or commit a crime you should be charged with a felony.
Only if you prove you took adequate steps to secure your weapon (safe, trigger locks, etc) should you be able to walk away free. We need to encourage responsible gun ownership and punish irresponsible gun ownership. These types of situations are preventable simply through education and a little bit of punishment.
I had a soldier bring his personal firearm to the reserve center, and accidently shoot the house next door. You can train and train someone, and they will go off and do something stupid anyway.
Toddlers kill people.
Next will be a pro or anti abortion post?
We need more good toddlers with guns to stop all those bad toddlers with guns.
Less guns means less gun violence.
There are places in the world where there is very little gun violence.
Those places all have one thing in common: Less guns.
I love my country, but if you don't think it's insane that small children are shooting people on a regular basis with weapons, legally purchased or not, you are part of the problem.
There what, 330 million people in the US, and about 24 million are ages 0-5. 43 shootings involving toddlers is obviously bad for those involved, but hard to call it a pressing problem. Drownings are affecting far more children than this.
So, I find that there are generally two arguments:
--You can't take my guns
--Ban all the guns
My thoughts are that, the "Ban all the guns" group is wishful thinking. That ship has sailed, and if you try to ban guns, then only outlaws will have guns, and I don't think that's any good.
For those folks that want guns, I think that's all fine and well and good, but the owner of the gun must be held criminally responsible if the gun kills anybody. If your toddler picks up the gun and kills grandma, you are on the hook for murder. If a gun is available to a toddler (or anybody, really), you can count on the toddler to kill somebody. Period.
I don't have a gun in my house, but if I want one, I still want to be able to have one. But if my kid shoots somebody with it, I need to be put in jail because of it.
It boggles the mind, however, that somebody would be dumb enough to think a toddler wouldn't pick up a gun and explore their world - like the woman that was killed when her toddler pulled the gun out of her purse while shopping at Wal Mart. That's just stupid, and she paid the price.
First, I agree that this particular story probably shouldn't be on ./ . Secondly, I am biased on the issue of gun control. I think that responsible citizens should be allowed to own and use guns.
The real issue is gun safety. I shot my first gun when I was 3. You better believe that my dad kept his firearms locked up unloaded with the ammo in a different safe. Each of us (my sister included!) were taught how to safely handle guns. We knew to stand behind whoever was shooting, aim the barrel at the ground until we were ready to shoot, how to hand the gun to the next person in line, etc. If you are going to have weapons, store them properly so they aren't mistaken for toys by toddlers, and teach gun safety to everyone near them. Perhaps there should be a gun license (or a certificate for having completed a safety course) which must be shown when purchasing firearms.
This is really no different than in the past when a child would wander away from the group/outside the cave and get eaten by a wolf/bear/other hungry animal. Those who were lucky or smart enough not to get eaten passed on their genes. Those who weren't, didn't.
Same thing here. Only the method of demise is different.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
The problem here is fairly clearly people making inappropriate choices about guns; perhaps because they take the 'small' in 'small arms' a bit too seriously.
Toddlers don't understand firearm risks; but they also aren't that strong. Some peashooter little handgun left around where they can find it? Terrible plan. A nice squad automatic weapon or anti material rifle? Is the kid going to operate something that weighs more than he does?
So many of these tragedies could have been averted if people had just chosen bigger guns.
43, huh?
http://www.cdc.gov/safechild/N... "Unintentional suffocation - which also includes strangulation and choking on food or other objects - killed 1,176 U.S. children in 2010."
Just search a little and find all the other ways toddlers kill themselves and others. One of my friends with kids described it as largely being comprised of keeping his kid from killing himself all the time until he got old enough to try to kill himself less often. That's what happens when anything dangerous is anywhere near a toddler for whatever small amount of time it takes for them to do the wrong thing with it - and there are LOTS of dangerous things around, with plastic bags being higher on the list than firearms.
You have the right to remain dead.
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
Is there any reason at all for this to be on Slashdot, except to push a general political agenda?
It's worse than you might think.
By associating toddlers with gun shootings they're making an emotional argument against gun ownership.
In short, we need to clamp down on gun ownership because we've now inflated the likelihood of a tragic incident in the minds of the reader. We do this by showing the enormous, large number without context, and by making it seem continuous and ever present.
Consider what your teenage daughter might think on reading the headline: One child a week gets shot! OMG!
This is just another non-evidence-based appeal for gun control, brought to light because the democrats are using the issue to help get elected.
And then, of course, they'll do nothing. Again.
Think it through. What contextual information might put the "one toddler a week" meme into perspective, and make it seem less important?
The NRA supports this... So these shootings are a win for them.
Actually the NRA is the premier organization for firearms safety instruction, both for civilians and law enforcement. Preventing such accidents is the NRA's primary mission. Political activism is a secondary thing forced upon them.
The NRA believes that all firearms owners should seek competent safety instruction when buying that first firearm. They certify instructors, develop training materials, etc. They just don't believe in a government run system for such training since state government could deprive a citizen of ownership by failing to provide instructors or materials for mandated classes. Such things have been done in the past.
Hell, such games are still occurring, note the closing of all department of motor vehicle offices in some "black" counties in alabama just as drivers licenses will be required to vote.
Think of the children!
With guns!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
It is a felony in California. After a rash of incidents that involved children getting a hold of guns, California passed a law that made the owner of the firearm strictly liable and responsible if a child was able to obtain possession of that firearm and do any damage with it.
To go even further, when you purchase a firearm in California there is a disclosure of this law to the purchaser and the purchaser is forced to by a lock with a handgun.
After this law, the rate of incidents involving children accessing guns went down dramatically.
Citation needed, but if true this is the most informative comment here: it presents concrete steps which seem to have successfully addressed the problem and may provide a model for further work.
Personally I think a parent who loses a child has suffered enough ninety-nine times out of a hundred, but if data shows it saves kids lives, yes, we should move toward strict liability.
Guns are tools and, like many other tools, can be misused. Would there be the same outrage if a toddler got hold of a cordless power drill and accidentally injured his grandmother with it? Granted the chance of a fatal injury is higher with a firearm, but the responsibility for proper access and use of any tool is with both the user and owner - and I would argue on a sliding scale of which one is most capable of being most responsible.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Government can force you to buy a contract from a private insurance company that you normally would not purchase
If you think that's bad, I'm required to show proof of rental insurance every year for the apartment I rent. A corporate entity is forcing me to buy insurance that I don't want to buy! OUTRAGEOUS!
According to:
http://www.livescience.com/448...
10 people die of drowning every day.
Therefore guns are aprox 70 times safer than pools.
Why there is no anti-pool agenda?
I am not a gun owner. I think gun ownership in general should be heavily restricted in this country, and most types of firearms should be banned outright. The only way to reduce gun violence in this country is to get rid of most guns. Less guns means less gun violence.
Two counterexamples to prove you wrong. Mexico. Switzerland.
In particular in Switzerland target shooting is popular. There are many semiautomatics with detachable magazines, something that would be considered an "assault weapon" is various misinformed circles. However what does Switzerland have. Proper background checks, proper safety training and proper safe storage for one. Secondly they don't have much in the way of poorly educated and hopeless.
So no, its not the guns. Guns are just scapegoats for failed educational and socioeconomic policies here in the U.S.
So isn't this essentially arguing for Disneyfying the world to keep kids safe?
Ban all porn (or at least require training in the proper handling and storage before downloading that file).
Alternatively ban or require sex education (even though there is scant proof comprehensive sex education reduces teen pregnancy. Ditto banning it).
And of course all manner of food, drugs, video games, D&D, etc.
It just strikes me as peculiar that some will argue for personal responsibility and freedom of choice when their favored thingy is under fire, and in the same breath argue for regulation and restriction when it is someone else's favorite thingy.
And in the past few decades we have moved increasingly towards Disneyfying the world. I would just like some honesty to which degree the world should cater exclusively to children.
I thought this was Slashdot not Huffingtonpost, every week some leftist/se ism issue is posted, how about we tackle the 50K suicides or the >500K heart disease deaths or >500K cancer deaths but then again those aren't politically divisive issues that instigate dumb dumbstruck to argue with each other
SlashDot readers are by and large smart people, educated people.
They are the ones that analyze the instructions manuals for new microwave ovens and TV sets, or new gadgets of every description. As gun owners, it stands to reason that they would also seek education and training on proper gun handling, storage safety, shooting skills, and could probably rattle off all the engineering specs of the firearm and the ammo they use.
Despite what you may think, the NRA is an excellent resource on gun safety and training as well as shooting for sport and fun.
This is a clear example of natural selection in action guys.
Please lets not eliminate every possible way that mother nature can weed out the less intelligent.
For the most part, it is physically impossible for a toddler to chamber a round in most guns (unless we're talking about a revolver, but they represent a very small percentage of pistols these days). I, personally, never keep a round chambered in my pistol I carry regularly. I can pull the gun, turn the safety off, operate the action, and be ready to fire in about a second. I am not in high risk situations from day to day, like law enforcement, where the chances of me needing to operate my gun with one hand while fending someone off with the other is very likely. I can guarantee that almost every one of these people whose toddlers fired their pistol are not in high risk situations either.
So my question is why do so many people feel the need to have a round chambered at all times?
Further, I think a part of the problem is guns like Glocks have no actual safety. My conceal carry weapon has a safety which locks the action, prevents the trigger from being pulled, and physically prevents the hammer from striking the firing pin. It also serves as a de-cock mechanism. If I were to carry a round chambered, I would have the gun de-cocked, and since it is also double-action, I can just flip the safety and pull the trigger (which takes a tremendous amount of pressure when not cocked), which is still vastly safer in the hands of a child. Not only do Glocks not have safeties, but you can't de-cock them either. They are weapons designed more for military and police type use, where nothing should come in the way of the fun firing when the trigger is pulled.
So the problem is two-fold: 1) Don't keep a round chambered unless you feel the need to discharge the weapon is imminent. 2) If you have children, select a gun that has actual safety mechanisms (you know, a "safety") that enhances safety and prevents accidental discharges or operation by children.
Better known as 318230.
Lock up more folks for longer. That'll teach em...
What? You say we're locking up too many people for way too long for "non-violent" crimes and the prison system is way too huge and corrupt already?
Convenient how that just flies out the window when it seems to suit your agenda.
How about we count up how many children die each year from choking on otherwise harmless objects and from drowning and from running out in the street and getting hit by cars and from falling down stairs, and from not being properly restrained in a car seat when an accident occurs (or placed in the front seat of a car with airbags that can't be disabled), not to mention being shaken by an adult when they won't stop crying, etc. Hint, it's in the THOUSANDS of DEATHS per year, compared with 43 "shootings," many of which were not even fatal for anyone. Parents make mistakes. You will never achieve 0% stupidity in parenting, even if you required a "parenting license" (which would be ludicrous anyway). Parents are often over-stressed and under-rested, and nobody gives them a through owners manual for their kid. Parents needs help and support and advice, not longer prison sentences when they get absent-minded and screw up.
So yes, there absolutely should be laws about keeping firearms away from young children, and those laws _already exist_ and have reasonable penalties attached to them. Stiffer sentences WILL NOT DO A DAMN THING to reduce this, period! You think parents who lose their child or a family member (or themself) due to carelessly leaving a gun in reach of a child just plan to do it thinking "eh, I'll only do a little time, or maybe probation and a fine, here you go 2-year-old, have at" or what?!
Some things that might ACTUALLY help, if one is really concerned about this problem instead of just using it as a convenient excuse to spout gun control BS:
More awareness campaigns to remind gun owners about the dangers, and about the laws already on the books. This could be provided via public service announcements, social media, literature and advice/signage at gun stores, packaging materials (I think it's already there) and perhaps even included with the other information provided to new parents at the hospital.
Perhaps a brief but mandatory training program for purchasers (but have to be careful not to create yet another monstrous and expensive bureaucracy around it, or set it up in such a way that gun advocates might see it as a way to block legitimate purchases).
A _reasonable_ child safety mechanism for new guns (not some complicated and awkward crap that makes the gun nearly useless to the actual owner nor one that requires expensive advanced technology that drives costs through the roof and may not even be reliable). Something as simple as a mechanism that requires a larger had or more strength than a young child's. Say, to take the safety off you just have to firmly hold the grip in order to unlock it, an action that's fairly quick and natural.
The answer's simple. Ensure all small children are armed so that in the advent of a child "going rogue" another 4 year old can take them down.
Auto accidents still kill far more children, and yet there isn't the handwringing over automobile ownership. And the vast majority of auto accidents are attributable to driver error, i.e. being stupid behind the wheel.
So exactly how do you fix that? Most people will not get an adequate assessment of the limitations of their capabilities until it is too late and the damage is done.
How often do you have to take the written and driving tests when renewing your driver's license?
I'm thinking we should finish our descent into madness, and convert ourselves into Daleks.
Looks like Dice and slashdot are gearing up for the election year - with all the usual liberal talking points. The only question is who's paying for it?
Total number of U.S. heatstroke deaths of children left in cars, 2015: 23
Total number of U.S. heatstroke deaths of children left in cars, 2014: 31
Total number of U.S. heatstroke deaths of children left in cars, 1998-present: 660
Average number of U.S. child heatstroke fatalities per year since 1998: 37
Children involved in 2014 Nontraffic Fatalities (as of 6/18/15):
Backovers: 71
Frontovers: 63
Vehicle set in motion: 5
Underage Driver: 16
Drowning: 3
Power Window Strangulation: 2
Fall from Vehicle: 1
Other: 1
Total: 194
Every year, thousands of children are hurt and dozens are killed because a driver, usually a parent, backing up didn't see them.
Every year, thousands of children are hurt or and dozens are killed because a driver, usually a parent, moving forward very slowly didn't see them. These incidents for the most part take place in residential driveways or parking lots and are referred to as ‘frontovers.’ (the opposite of a backover).
"Guns don't kill toddlers. Toddlers kill toddlers."
fyi twice as many drown in a year. No one wants to ban mr bucket, but then mr bucket can't stop THEM from imposing their will upon you.
http://www.cpsc.gov/en/Newsroo...
lose != loose
Folks, I think we have a winner.
In the United States there are approx 310 million guns owned by civilians. Let's not take into account millions of the weapons owned by military, police, Social Security Agency and other similar organizations.
Coincidentally, there is approximately one gun per one person in the US>
If there are 43 cases that involved, per year, that means there is approximately 0.000000143 probability that the toddler will be involved. Let's do some analysis here... There is an estimated number of more than 1,500 per year who win one million or more dollars per year in the United States. Statistically, 30 toddlers will win one million dollars before one of them is involved in accident.
There is one crucial difference. "Involved" does not mean there is a fatality.
Conclusion is very simple: The quoted number is statistically insignificant. Vaccination complications cause higher mortality than there are accidents involving guns. To finalize, there are many issues to be resolved before this topic is escalated. And put that gun to safe away from kids.
who shoot handguns competitively for sport would disagree. Personally, none of my handguns has ever inflicted any damage on a human body, let alone lethal damage despite having fired thousands of rounds through them. I have no intention of ever inflicting any damage to any human being with any of my guns (indeed, none of my guns has ever harmed any animals either, if you don't count the rats executed in the trap with my pellet gun).
The real purpose of a gun is to fire a bullet toward whatever you aimed it at.
Well, there was that one time hot brass flew into my shirt. And one time I got bit by the slide action when it nipped a bit of skin off my thumb.
In a wider context, we must enjoy gun violence or we'd have done something about it by now. Way I see it, you've got one of two options: Ban guns, like Australia did, or just give everyone a gun, require them to carry it at all times, and let the games begin! I know which one I'm rooting for!
Or I guess we could keep doing what we're doing and let evolution take its course. Maybe in a few generations we'll be able to dodge bullets like Neo in The Matrix.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
There is a difference between pools and guns. Insurance.
Insurance companies collect significant premiums from pools, and for them it is a significant business. I do not think that insurance companies will give up this profit center that easily.
Guns, on the other hand, are not usually insured. There are more than 300 million guns in US. If a premium is, say, $50 per year, can you imagine, then, $15 Billion gun insurance industry?
are left in hot cars? fall into pools? blah blah blah.
with anything else and all of a sudden it's a non-story.
Toddler consumed $chemical and died. Child electocuted themselves after sticking a fork in a wall socket and died. Child found dead floating in pool. Kid found X in house, did Y with it and, yup, died.
Why does the method matter ?
No one seems to give a shit unless a gun is involved. Then, all of a sudden, it's time for another anti-gun crusade event of the week.
Sure, lock the guns up if you have kids. Teach them to respect them when they're old enough. No issues and is common sense for 99% of parents out there.
I wonder if the folks who came up with this story realizes that an alternate fix for children injuring themselves with guns is not to have children. . . . . .
I mean, think of the children :) Less children equates to less child related injuries or death.
I don't post many comments on here, but I just wanted to offer my perspective (Take it or leave it) As a Licenced Gun Owner in Australia, there are a few things I think we have got right (Some things we have got wrong too)
There are a few categories over here for ownership
Cat A: Rimfire Rifles (Not Semi/Full Auto), and Shotguns (Not Semi/Full Auto or Pump) - Magazine Capacity up to 10 rounds
Cat B: Center fire Rifles (Not Semi/Full Auto) - Magazine capacity up to 10 rounds
Cat C: Pump Action Shotguns up to 5 rounds, Semi Auto Rimfire Rifles with Magazine capacity up to 10 Rounds
Cat D: Semi Auto Centre fire Rifles and all other rifles/shutguns with Larger magazine capacity
Cat H: Handguns
1. Safe Storage
This in my opinion is the most important thing. Anyone can break into a Firearms Safe but is required for all owners and is inspected regularly by local police.
Does this stop someone steeling your firearms... not really. It does stop my kids and other people from getting at them.
Ammo and Firearms must be stored separately.
There are further requirements for Cat C,D and H above normal firearms safes.
2. It is very hard to get a Cat C/D licence here. You need to be a primary producer (Run a farm etc.) for Cat C, and there are even more restrictions on Cat D.
As much as I would love to shoot/go hunting with a Semi Auto Rifle, it really isn't a big deal. If you need a semi auto for hunting, then it isn't much of a sport.
3. You can't get a licence if you have had a Criminal Conviction within the last 10 years (Firearms, Drugs, Robbery etc.) or if you have had an Apprehended Violence Order in the last 10 years. So... don't give them to criminals and people that should not be trusted with a firearm. Most Australian Firearms owners are good citizens because they do not wish to loose their licence!
4. Permits to acquire are needed. You need to Apply for a permit to buy a firearm, and specify what type you are buying. The turnaround is around 2 weeks to get it back, but only once you have a permit you can walk in and pick up a firearm. They are about $30 a throw and are valid for 3 months.... This stops people walking in off the street and picking up a firearm, rounds and walking out to use it straight away.
We do have some stupid laws that prohibit gun owners from enjoying their sport.
If you only have a reason to hunt (Vermin control on a property etc) you can't just walk up to a shooting range and shoot, because you must be a member of a range and have that genuine reason too.
No Silencers
Are some of these things a hindrance? Yes, but nothing that stops me enjoying using my rifles, and stopping them getting into the hands of people that will use them for the wrong reasons, or do not know how to use them and could injure themselves or others accidentally.
The questions of personal protection? I guess if most people are not carrying and or using them all the time, then there isn't a problem. I think it will be very hard for America to reverse its stance on that... It would leave the honest people without guns and the not so honest (Read criminals) with them.
I don't have an answer for this, and not sure if the way our laws work would help or hinder this in the short term. Long term it could work.
Don't get me wrong, we have criminals with guns here, but they are much harder to get. Pretty much all guns used in crime are not registered and full automatic firearms (Such as AR15's etc) are going to be hard to find and very expensive.
More info from NSW Police
https://www.police.nsw.gov.au/...
https://www.police.nsw.gov.au/...
"...In 31 of those 43 cases, a toddler found a gun and shot himself or herself."
There is something terribly wrong when a toddler turns to suicide. Is it bad upbringing? Genetics? Something they saw on TV? There are many suspects but I'll bet it's not those obvious ones.
Nobody seems to be paying attention to the devastating effect of sugar to human bodies, including the brains! Have you ever noticed that almost every brain addled, gun toting killer or suicide seeker is a consumer of sugar? A recent study of people who had suffered an unwanted death indicated that 93.3% of them had consumed sugar or other simple carbohydrates. Of those who enjoyed a wanted death, the percentage was even higher.
Lesson learned: Do not get your children hooked on sweets, even if the label says Gerber. They could turn on you at any moment. Think of the children!
...omphaloskepsis often...
In one instance you choose to live there, in the other you choose to live. And if you can not see the difference I truly feel sorry for you.
In Australia - guns only with a police check, and an inspection of your firearm safe, 28 day waiting period, guns and ammo in separate locked gun safes, no high powered autos, limited mags, licenses only with a demonstrated genuine need. It works pretty well for us.
But, we were lucky - we didn't have the same number of guns in our society (so a more limited black market) and there isn't the same level of gun obsession. An ocean separates us from any regional armed conflict so smuggling is harder. We also don't have a history/mythology that conflates firearms and freedom. A lot of gun owners weren't happy about the regulations, but at the end of the day the majority just said "yeah, I suppose it makes sense", and got on with their lives.
Yet caps on drain cleaner are more regulated than trigger guards on guns. Why?
Well there are many ways to safely store a gun that do not require trigger locks. You could store it in a safe, for instance.
Be VERY, very careful about storing a gun in a gun safe around kids. (Pick the right one and pay more). There are a lot of badly designed safes out there that kids can crack into. See e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
To many of us outside the US, the national obsession with firearms in that country looks like a bizarre mass psychosis. By any measure, the deadly proliferation of guns in that country is killing far more people than in any country on the planet.
Once upon a time I wondered if there could be a way to make people understand that it's a thing you need to let go of, but increasingly these days it's a case of sit back, grab some popcorn and watch the nation of gun nuts all kill each other.
The flaw to your rationale is that a fetus has the same value as a human life. Who's is protecting the life of human spermatozoa from the debauched actions of males?
There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
Enough other countries have gun control and have less gun crime than you do spree killings and toddlers shooting people. Wake up and smell your bullshit if you believe that everyone should have the right to own a gun then you're as guilty as the losers who go to school and start shooting people indiscriminately!
Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.
Hit piece on guns. Credibility in question
This will probably get downvoted all to hell and probably sound really cruel. I am a father of 3 myself. But this is Darwin's Law clearly at work....
"Amassing arms to overthrow the government is treason and now is ultimately futile."
Incorrect on both counts. "Patriotism" is not about blindly following your government, it's about following principles. Many people accuse Edward Snowden of "treason" when the real traitors are the government employees who violate the Rights of the citizens.
You totally underestimate the capabilities of lightly armed guerrilla fighters. Look no further than Afghanistan. All the USA government's advanced technology and even after 14 years, they've been unable to defeat an Afghan insurgency equipped with small arms and improvised explosives. What makes you think the same government would be any more successful fighting a similar insurgency in a country with 10x the population and 12x the land area(lower 48)?
The federal government has 2.2 million active & reserve military personnel spread across the globe and another 2 million civilian employees. If only 2% of the population of the USA was willing to take up arms against the government, that's an army of 6.4 million people, spread over 8 million sq km. If another 20% of the population was willing to lend logistical support, the government would be totally doomed. How do you use an A-10 or a nuclear weapon to fight a war against an insurgent army that wears no uniforms and mingles in with the civilian population? Are you going to nuke Boise Idaho and kill 200,000 people just to get 4,000 armed militants? All that advanced weaponry is practically useless in a guerrilla war because you end up slaughtering civilians which only makes the insurgency stronger.
"I want to allow people to have guns"
Our Rights are not a matter of what government is going to "allow". Our system is supposed to be based on the idea of what We, The People "allow" the government to do.
Further Reading:
-"The War of the Flea" -Robert Tabor
-"Understanding Fourth Generation War" -William Lind
-The Declaration of Independence
-The JPFO genocide chart
It's an evolution story: survival of the fittest. Eventually morons leaving their loaded firearms lying around and their progeny will die out.
Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power. -- Mussolini
Consider that in that same week an average of 948 fires were accidentally set by children playing with fire (mostly lighters and matches) resulting in at least 1 death, 16 injuries and $4-5 million in property damage.
In that same week an average of 50 children (mostly toddlers) will be backed over by a car.
In that same week 94 children will end up in an emergency room due to an accident in a pool or spa. About 7-8 will die. Most of them will be pre-schoolers.
In that same week over 5000 people will call poison control because of a child accidentally ingesting medication, and at least 1000 children under the age of 5 will land in the emergency room. Most weeks one will die.
In that same week over 200 children will accidentally inject household cleaners. Of those about 12 the poisoning is life-threatening or results in a long-term disability.
In that same week about 30 children will die as the result of neglect or abuse. In most case the parents will be directly at fault.
In that same week about 10 children will be murdered, 6 of them by one of their parents.
None of this detracts from the tragedy of accidental shootings, of course, or exonerates gun owners who do fail to properly secure their weapons. But the relative rarity of accidental shootings compared to other accidental injuries would seem to suggest that the majority of the 300+ million guns in the country /are/ properly secured.
I lived in my studio apartment for ten years. For the last five years I was told by the leasing office to get rental insurance because it was "the law," but they could never cite the actual law for me to verify and then told me that rental insurance was nice to have. This year the leasing office changed the rental contract to require proof of rental insurance. But they really insisted on using their rental insurance company owned by the leasing office corporation. Since most people don't use their insurance policy, the corporate office could make an extra $32,000 per month in income if all the residents signed up with them. This isn't the first nickel-and-dime scheme that the corporate office tried to implement.
The corporate office got upset that many residents had AAA as their insurance carrier and AAA disallowed the corporate office from being listed as a "party of interest" on the policy, which would allow the corporate office to drain the AAA policy before the insurance policy for the apartment complex kicked in. They also backed off the threat of evicting tenants who couldn't get them listed on their insurance policy. Evicting that many AAA members would cause a public scandal and diminished the "luxury" value — new exterior paint and landscaping — of their properties.
I understand the concern, and it's horrible when any child dies, but this isn't even in the top 5 causes of accident or top 10 causes injury death for this age group. https://www.homeminders.com/Ar... http://www.cdc.gov/injury/imag...
Is there a killing machine so large that it should not be allowed in the hands of Joe Average? Gun nuts always argue from the standpoint that there is no line despite knowing there is one. So pools kill people. Are they designed specifically to efficiently kill people? How about cars? A kid a week shot because Freedum.
it takes two to tango.
lose != loose
"WE NEED TO ARM THEM!!!"
alive to the universe, dead to the world
For some perspective here, how about some links to how many people working for Gun-ban organizations have shot themselves or others accidentily. Maybe we should ban gun-ban organizations? 8-)
Or to be a bit more serious, how many policmen, soldiers or politicians?
In no Math universe is 43 out of 350,000,000 frequent.
I liken gun owners to dog owners...
Most dog owners pick up after their dogs. There is a minority that does not. However because there are an awful lot of dog owners, the urban park next to my house is basically an open toilet.
Whenever the topic is brought up amongst dog owners they will wail about how responsible most dog owners are, and how it is only a minority that are setting a bad example. That doesn't change the fact that the urban park next to my house is basically in open toilet.